update_todo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action but does not disclose return behavior, error conditions, permission requirements, or how null values in the input schema affect existing fields. It only adds that the todo belongs to the authenticated user, which is marginal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It is not overly verbose, though it is brief enough to border on under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify important behaviors such as whether omitted parameters leave fields unchanged while null parameters clear them, or what the tool returns after a successful update.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the four parameters (day, content, goal_id, todo_id). 'Provided fields' gives no meaning beyond the schema's field names, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation ('Update'), the resource ('todo'), the scope ('one authenticated user's'), and the partial nature ('provided fields'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_todo, complete_todo, and delete_todo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose update_todo over alternatives. It does not mention that complete_todo should be used for marking complete, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.